I'm designing a new 2-story police facility and started to perform the new 2005 Title 24 Non-Residential Calculations as required by the State. I'm using the EnergyPro 4.0 software to perform these calculations.
It looks like we have a major issue in regards to the Power Adjustment Factors (aka Control Credits) of your total lighting wattage.
For those of you that are familiar with Title 24, the 2001 Non-Residential Standards called for occupancy sensors in any space that was < 250 square feet. This factor was rated for 0.20 control credits.
It also had a provision for any room > 250 square feet. This factor was rated for 0.10 control credits. This can be verifed by the 2001 Title 24 Non-Residential Standards Table 5-10.
Now, with the 2005 Title 24 standards, the "any room > 250 square feet" provision has been deleted. It has been replaced with:
"Any space <= 250 square feet enclosed by floor-to-ceiling partitions; any size classroom, corridor, conference or waiting room." The factor is rated for 0.20 control credits. This can be verified by the 2005 Title 24 Non-Residential Standards Table 5-8: Standards Table 146-A Lighting Power Adjustment Factors.
Now here's the problem....
What happens when I have a large office area, restroom, fitness room, copy room, etc. that is larger than 250 square feet? According to the 2005 Title 24 Standards, I will no longer receieve lighting control credits for these rooms.
This absolutely makes no sense. By this logic, I wouldn't even have to install occupancy sensors in these rooms. If I'm not getting the credit, why should I even install them? The calculations will not reflect this omission. How would this save energy?!
Furthermore, why do the Standards allow an occupancy sensor to be installed in conference and waiting rooms and not larger offices? Conference and waiting rooms are seldom used when compared to an average office that is larger than 250 square feet.
Finally, this is actaully penalizing the control credits further by not allowing power adjustment factors in larger primary office space.
I hope this makes some sense to some of you out there that are in the same boat as I am.
Any input from the California guys would be appreciated.
Thanks!!
It looks like we have a major issue in regards to the Power Adjustment Factors (aka Control Credits) of your total lighting wattage.
For those of you that are familiar with Title 24, the 2001 Non-Residential Standards called for occupancy sensors in any space that was < 250 square feet. This factor was rated for 0.20 control credits.
It also had a provision for any room > 250 square feet. This factor was rated for 0.10 control credits. This can be verifed by the 2001 Title 24 Non-Residential Standards Table 5-10.
Now, with the 2005 Title 24 standards, the "any room > 250 square feet" provision has been deleted. It has been replaced with:
"Any space <= 250 square feet enclosed by floor-to-ceiling partitions; any size classroom, corridor, conference or waiting room." The factor is rated for 0.20 control credits. This can be verified by the 2005 Title 24 Non-Residential Standards Table 5-8: Standards Table 146-A Lighting Power Adjustment Factors.
Now here's the problem....
What happens when I have a large office area, restroom, fitness room, copy room, etc. that is larger than 250 square feet? According to the 2005 Title 24 Standards, I will no longer receieve lighting control credits for these rooms.
This absolutely makes no sense. By this logic, I wouldn't even have to install occupancy sensors in these rooms. If I'm not getting the credit, why should I even install them? The calculations will not reflect this omission. How would this save energy?!
Furthermore, why do the Standards allow an occupancy sensor to be installed in conference and waiting rooms and not larger offices? Conference and waiting rooms are seldom used when compared to an average office that is larger than 250 square feet.
Finally, this is actaully penalizing the control credits further by not allowing power adjustment factors in larger primary office space.
I hope this makes some sense to some of you out there that are in the same boat as I am.
Any input from the California guys would be appreciated.
Thanks!!
